I caught this one in the local paper today:
http://www.georgetownnews.com/articles/2008/08/14/breaking_news/doc48a3abca25184303028770.txt
The article itself isn't too bad, however the caption on the picture gave me a good laugh.
Suprisingly enough, however, no one I've shown the paper to so far has caught the problem without my explaining it.
Is it the notion that the fate of a city lies on giving a caboose a new coat of paint? Because if the future of your town rests upon such a project, I would suggest that it is already too late.
Yes yes, the good old steering wheel. It is kind of funny, but I don't see this as being a hue cry over the shotty state of contemporary journalism. You know what? A hand brake does look like a steering wheel. To someone that knows nothing of trains and has never worked around them, is would be natural to assume without a further passing thought that the hand brake was a steering wheel.
People here get pretty exciting whenever a journalist missuses a railway term or says something like, "the conductor tried to stop the train," etc etc. These people aren't railway experts. They're folks who have to throw together a dozen or so stories per day based on short press conferences and poorly written press releases.
On the general subject of "journalism":
A few winters ago, some idiot and his son were out snowmobiling near the BNSF Hinckley Sub. I think the location was Bethel, MN (just up the tracks from where I live). The idiot father pulled across the tracks just ahead of a freight train and just barely made it (meaning he started when that train was way close), the son decided to follow, and was killed.
What burned me up was the local 10 PM news buzzard who got the assignment to go up there was going on about how there was only a pair of crossbucks at the dirt road crossing and, "trains have been rolling through this busy intersection about every 15 minutes".
What he failed to state was that trains had been held-up at Isanti, Cambridge, Brook Park, Grasston, Sandstone, Askov, Bruno, Nickerson, Foxboro, Boylston and Superior that whole evening while they cleaned-up the scene. He also never said a single word about the effect it'd have on the crew. I called KMSP about it and complained, and basically got the sympathetic ear with no action.
ben10ben wrote: I caught this one in the local paper today:http://www.georgetownnews.com/articles/2008/08/14/breaking_news/doc48a3abca25184303028770.txtThe article itself isn't too bad, however the caption on the picture gave me a good laugh. Suprisingly enough, however, no one I've shown the paper to so far has caught the problem without my explaining it.
Last summer I was riding one of our trains, off-duty, using a GPS to plot the elevations. With no signal inside the car, I'd run an external antenna to the roof, with the cable coming in through the baggage car door to my GPS.
With what appeared to be a straight face, a passenger came up to me and asked if I was steering the train....
Gave me a chuckle at the time.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Let me turn the situation around. Most of us are reasonably well-versed in railroading and know a bit more about it then the public at large. In my younger days, I played and officiated the game of rugby. How well could any of you cover and write a story about a rugby game without that story getting picked apart by rugby aficionados (including me) who know more about the game than you do? The average reporter probably doesn't have time to do enough research to get the terminology right since he's writing on deadline.
CS - You're right. I like to think that I'd ask enough questions to write a respectable piece, though - ie, not describing the game in football or soccer terms. Some people don't know enough to realize they don't know enough about the topic at hand. They just apply their existing knowledge to the new subject.
If the caption had simply read "a wheel" instead of "the steering wheel" we wouldn't be having this discussion.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
WIAR wrote:Just so they don't lower the appearance standards for the female anchors on FNC (holy God).
But that is the heart of TV journalism! Either that or sing song Valley Girls, Imeanreally.
henry6 wrote:The problem is with today's journalists in that they do not have to be intellegent or curious enough to learn about what is around them. It has been touted as a sexy, glamourous, rewarding profession and so has attracted a lot of people not quialified. It, like so many other things in this country, has been touted as a job rather than a serious career. Going deeper and further, media owners don't care, it is just whoever will fill the slot for the least pay. I have been associated with media for over 45 years and cannot say I am proud of it anymore!
Henry, I think you have something there. In my previous life, in a state far, far away, I was a newspaper reporter for a few years. Actually thought about making a career out of it, and was just going to work for a railroad to make the money I needed to pursue a journalism education at college. Anyway, to address Paul, in those days nobody would have even dreamed of asking me to cover a sports event (I supplied some stories on my college's basketball games, but those were mostly stats). When I was actually sent into the field (not often--I usually worked the phone and wire services), I was briefed on what to watch for, and I knew to ask questions.
The worst things I see around here on our local news is coverage of something having to do with a local railroad. They usually identify the line as something else, and don't correctly inform people about which Metra Service is affected (traffic copter guy covers an accident on the Metra Electric South Chicago branch, and has everybody riding the South Shore looking for alternate transportation, for example).
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRR wrote: henry6 wrote:The problem is with today's journalists in that they do not have to be intellegent or curious enough to learn about what is around them. It has been touted as a sexy, glamourous, rewarding profession and so has attracted a lot of people not quialified. It, like so many other things in this country, has been touted as a job rather than a serious career. Going deeper and further, media owners don't care, it is just whoever will fill the slot for the least pay. I have been associated with media for over 45 years and cannot say I am proud of it anymore! Henry, I think you have something there. In my previous life, in a state far, far away, I was a newspaper reporter for a few years. Actually thought about making a career out of it, and was just going to work for a railroad to make the money I needed to pursue a journalism education at college. Anyway, to address Paul, in those days nobody would have even dreamed of asking me to cover a sports event (I supplied some stories on my college's basketball games, but those were mostly stats). When I was actually sent into the field (not often--I usually worked the phone and wire services), I was briefed on what to watch for, and I knew to ask questions.The worst things I see around here on our local news is coverage of something having to do with a local railroad. They usually identify the line as something else, and don't correctly inform people about which Metra Service is affected (traffic copter guy covers an accident on the Metra Electric South Chicago branch, and has everybody riding the South Shore looking for alternate transportation, for example).
My recent Copter-Guy story: I was watching the online coverage from one of the LA stations a couple weeks ago after the 5.(whatever) quake. The copter was flying above the Metrolink tracks looking for signs of trouble (there weren't any of course). Then Copter-Guy called them the tracks of the "Santa Fe Burlington National." It gave me a pretty good chuckle.
Michael
Most of the time, these flubs just cause me to laugh, or maybe shake my head. I was upset enough at the coverage of the Elmwood Park Metra incident to e-mail the reporter who presented much of it (he wrote a very intelligent reply).
The one that made me the maddest, though, was something I thankfully never saw firsthand--somebody in LA-LA land convinced half of the populace that the engineer is in the locomotive cab at the rear of the train when it's operating in push mode (as it was during the Metrolink crash a few years ago). Pat's uncle lives in Metrolink territory, and when he visited us a few months later, he was genuinely amazed that Metra has the engineer in the cab car on the inbound runs. The reporter's erroneous assertion may have led to the debate about push-pull operations there that was, thankfully, thrown out of court.
Let me say a few things in favor of print reporters:
1) No one can be an expert on everything, but reporters are expected to research and write their stories as though they were. In days past, cub reporters would be put on a regular beat like night court or obituaries until their writing and thinking clarified and they started up the ladder. That is an almost unheard-of luxury today.
2) Despite the increasing "bimbo-ization" of TV news reporters (male and female both, alas), most graduates with journalism degrees are smart and have been through a cut-throat experience in J-school. The best (presumably) wind up in print journalism, but most grads don't wind up in journalism at all: they become P.R. flacks for corporations or government and get to "explain" how healthful fast-food is, how safe plastic baby bottles are, etc. IOW they hate themselves.
3) Perhaps the reporter thinks the residents of Sadieville are idiots. I won't rule out the possibility that only the reporter is an idiot, but as they say it takes two to tango. Good grief, in Rochelle (just adjacent to the RR park) one homeowner keeps a caboose in his side yard. But this is the journalistic "silly season" and the reporter was probably ordered to do it for the sake of boosting Sadieville if nothing else. He could refuse the assignment but would probably get fired. What is sad to me is the blurring between editorializing and passing on factual content of interest, i.e., "news." Maybe the editor hates himself too.
How do the problems you state in journalism differ from any other profession? Which profession, pray tell, is problem free?
Plus, you contradict yourself in the above-- what is it touted as, a sexy, glamourous rewarding profession or a job rather than a serious career? Make up your mind.
I've been associated with the media for 43 years and I'm proud of my work -- but just like any other profession, it has its fools, and unfortunately they get the lions share of publicity.
Considering the millions of stories written yearly and the thousands about railroads, I'd say 99 percent are accurate. So why tear down an entire profession -- claiming you "know" the media and aren't proud of it anymore -- over one stupid caption in a teeny-tiny local rag, a caption that probably was NOT written by the same guy who wrote the story, but rather the person that took the photo. Because that's how it's done.
Personally, I don't care one whit that you're not proud of my profession.
Poppa_Zit wrote: [How do the problems you state in journalism differ from any other profession? Which profession, pray tell, is problem free?Plus, you contradict yourself in the above-- what is it touted as, a sexy, glamourous rewarding profession or a job rather than a serious career? Make up your mind.I've been associated with the media for 43 years and I'm proud of my work -- but just like any other profession, it has its fools, and unfortunately they get the lions share of publicity.Considering the millions of stories written yearly and the thousands about railroads, I'd say 99 percent are accurate. So why tear down an entire profession -- claiming you "know" the media and aren't proud of it anymore -- over one stupid caption in a teeny-tiny local rag, a caption that probably was NOT written by the same guy who wrote the story, but rather the person that took the photo. Because that's how it's done.Personally, I don't care one whit that you're not proud of my profession. The quality of journalism has gone down over the years, partly because of megaownership of stations and newspapers. And there actually is more "to know" than what those in the profession had to know say 50 years ago. I find supervison (news editors, assignment editors) are often missing or just ripping off faxes and emails. One assignement editor told me that they don't even make police calls anymore unless they hear something by chance on a police radio. And the only time they will approach a public figure is if that figure has summoned them with a news release. Be proud of that! Not me!
[How do the problems you state in journalism differ from any other profession? Which profession, pray tell, is problem free?
The quality of journalism has gone down over the years, partly because of megaownership of stations and newspapers. And there actually is more "to know" than what those in the profession had to know say 50 years ago. I find supervison (news editors, assignment editors) are often missing or just ripping off faxes and emails. One assignement editor told me that they don't even make police calls anymore unless they hear something by chance on a police radio. And the only time they will approach a public figure is if that figure has summoned them with a news release. Be proud of that! Not me!
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Let me turn the situation around. Most of us are reasonably well-versed in railroading and know a bit more about it then the public at large. In my younger days, I played and officiated the game of rugby. How well could any of you cover and write a story about a rugby game without that story getting picked apart by rugby aficionados (including me) who know more about the game than you do? The average reporter probably doesn't have time to do enough research to get the terminology right since he's writing on deadline.
A voice of reason. How refreshing.
I do not know what your problem is.
Like the old hooken ladder fire truck. How would you get the back of the train around the corners.
What do you do when the train is backing up. It is much easer to get the train into its parking space.
Not everywhere do they have diagonal parking.
Maybe you are just to use to pull through parking.
henry6 wrote: The quality of journalism has gone down over the years, partly because of megaownership of stations and newspapers. And there actually is more "to know" than what those in the profession had to know say 50 years ago. I find supervison (news editors, assignment editors) are often missing or just ripping off faxes and emails. One assignement editor told me that they don't even make police calls anymore unless they hear something by chance on a police radio. And the only time they will approach a public figure is if that figure has summoned them with a news release. Be proud of that! Not me!
henry6 --
I don't know where you live, but it ain't done that way in the big city like Chicago where we have four daily papers and 100 radio and TV stations competing. That's where you find authentic journalists, the finest in the business, acting as a team toward a common goal -- watching those who need watching and producing a product that people are willing to pay for. And that's where you find things like Pulitzers, Lisagor and Peabody awards, Emmys, etc. You either do the job well or head for a small town weekly, where the pressure to produce is almost non-existent. Or take a PR job.
Smaller town newspapers without any competition can be a joke. Too often they place most of their energy into selling advertising and cozying up to politicians who are responsible for choosing where lucrative legal notices are placed.
The editorial wrapping around the ads is mostly club news, press releases, syndicated drivel, recipes and anything else that doesn't ruffle any feathers or cost more than a few bucks paid to freelancers who cover school and town board meetings and the like. No investigative reporting. No exposes. Too many publishers are making a comfortable living and don't want to rock the boat now that so many newspapers are struggling to break even. They chose the easy way rather than doing the job right and risk being ostracized by the community.
The big news conglomerates operate from afar and are concerned with only one thing -- the bottom line. And that's why editors -- who need to keep their jobs -- go along with the on-the-cheap system their bosses dictate. If they resist, they're gone and someone else is plugged into their place. Not many Lou Grant-type positions available anymore.
The Chicago Tribune, once one of the country's mightiest newspapers, is now laying off 200 of 570 people in its editorial departments. That won't improve the product, but in the short term it may improve the bottom line.
In small, unchallenged markets, too many publishers are in bed with a particular political party and let themselves be used in exchange for the above perks. Or are trying to operate on the cheap by not using reporters.
Those newspapers should be distributed on six-inch wide paper wrapped around a cardboard tube.
I wouldn't be proud of that either, but I think it is grossly unfair to lump all journalism into one category as you seem to be doing -- making a sweeping generalization. It's like saying that because a railroad once had an engineer show up for work drunk, all engineers are drunks. That is an logical fallacy, as much as what you're saying.
The way we do journalism in Chicago -- THAT'S what I'm proud of.
Poppa_Zit wrote:[ I don't know where you live, but it ain't done that way in the big city like Chicago where we have four daily papers and 100 radio and TV stations competing. That's where you find authentic journalists, the finest in the business, acting as a team toward a common goal -- watching those who need watching and producing a product that people are willing to pay for. And that's where you find things like Pulitzers, Lisagor and Peabody awards, Emmys, etc. You either do the job well or head for a small town weekly, where the pressure to produce is almost non-existent. Or take a PR job.Smaller town newspapers without any competition can be a joke. Too often they place most of their energy into selling advertising and cozying up to politicians who are responsible for choosing where lucrative legal notices are placed. The editorial wrapping around the ads is mostly club news, press releases, syndicated drivel, recipes and anything else that doesn't ruffle any feathers or cost more than a few bucks paid to freelancers who cover school and town board meetings and the like. No investigative reporting. No exposes. Too many publishers are making a comfortable living and don't want to rock the boat now that so many newspapers are struggling to break even. They chose the easy way rather than doing the job right and risk being ostracized by the community. The big news conglomerates operate from afar and are concerned with only one thing -- the bottom line. And that's why editors -- who need to keep their jobs -- go along with the on-the-cheap system their bosses dictate. If they resist, they're gone and someone else is plugged into their place. Not many Lou Grant-type positions available anymore. The Chicago Tribune, once one of the country's mightiest newspapers, is now laying off 200 of 570 people in its editorial departments. That won't improve the product, but in the short term it may improve the bottom line.In small, unchallenged markets, too many publishers are in bed with a particular political party and let themselves be used in exchange for the above perks. Or are trying to operate on the cheap by not using reporters.Those newspapers should be distributed on six-inch wide paper wrapped around a cardboard tube.I wouldn't be proud of that either, but I think it is grossly unfair to lump all journalism into one category as you seem to be doing -- making a sweeping generalization. It's like saying that because a railroad once had an engineer show up for work drunk, all engineers are drunks. That is an logical fallacy, as much as what you're saying. The way we do journalism in Chicago -- THAT'S what I'm proud of.
Oh, I understand where you are coming from, and in fact agree. Congolomorate ownership coupled with glamorizing media and it's jobs, is what has caused a dumbing down, if you will. Newspapers and broadcast station used to advertise for help in professional publications seeking qualified candadates with degrees and experience; today its on thier own pages or stations. They look for "bright, inquisitive, wanting a fabulous career in journalism (or newspaper field or broadcasating)" and then ask for a minimum education and no experience. Some even have used the words "glamourous" and "exciting" in describing the job openings from sales to editor (yes, editor). But, as I said, I do agree that in major markets there is a minimum of that come on and resulting reporters, editors, talant, etc. But lets drop this and get back to trains!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.